Re: What God Knows

At 03:05 PM 4/4/2006, George Murphy wrote:
>Janice -
>
>It sounds as if you're claiming that the Orthodox Church teaches
>process theology. Is that what you mean?
>

@ Absolutely not. Read my post again carefully. My point is to
take note of where different people place their PRIMARY focus. ~ Janice

>----- Original Message -----
>From: <mailto:janmatch@earthlink.net>Janice Matchett
>To: <mailto:burgytwo@juno.com>Carol or John Burgeson ;
><mailto:asa@lists.calvin.edu>asa@lists.calvin.edu
>Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2006 2:47 PM
>Subject: Re: What God Knows
>
>At 12:25 PM 4/4/2006, Carol or John Burgeson wrote:
>
>>I had mentioned: "...All the authors seem to be somewhat skittish
>>of process theology; at least this is my first impression."
>>
>>Janice commented: "@ Maybe that's because they know that process
>>theism is just a philosophical theology in the sense that it is not
>>grounded in claims of special insight or revealed truth but in
>>philosophical reflection."
>>
>>I'd maybe phrase it differently. It is not because they "know," but
>>because they are firmly committed to the position that PT is
>>incorrect because it is a philosophy and not grounded in revealed truth."
>
>@ Would you like to rephrase this, too?:
>
>"Historically, the word theosis was employed both in pre-Christian
>Greek antiquity, and also in pagan quarters existing
>contemporaneously with the early Christian Church, as F.W. Norris
>notes: "The use of theosis was daring. Non-Christians employed it to
>speak of pagan gods deifying creatures. The philosophers Iamblichus
>and Proclus, the poet Callimachus and the dreaded Julian the
>Apostate had used theoo in that way. It was not first a Christian
>word nor always employed by only Christians after they made it
>central. From within his deep contemplative life and from previous
>Church Tradition the Theologian picked it up, cleaned it up and
>filled it up with Christian sense. He and his fellow theologians
>took it captive and used it to speak about Christian realities" ~
>Norris, F.W., "Deification: Consensual and Cogent". Scottish Journal
>of Theology, 49, No. 4, 1996.
>
>>Now I am not a PT pretty much for the same reasons. But my
>>impression is that the essayists in the book don't analyze this question.
>>
>>I admit to only one reading of the book so far; I may come to a
>>different conclusion the second time through. ~ Burgy
>
>@ Another question worth analyzing is, "What is the chief end of
>man?" Here are some conclusions that have been reached:
>
>Eve: "My 'chief interest' is to become like God."
>
>Eastern Orthodox: "Theosis is the chief end of humanity. Humans were
>created for deification."
>
>Others place the emphasis elsewhere: "The chief end of man is to
>glorify God and enjoy him
>forever." http://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/evil.html
>
>Cyprian: "Whom Satan cannot prevail against by intemperance, those
>he prevails against by pride and vainglory." Oh let us take heed of
>self-worshipping! Aim purely at God's glory."
>
>Some details:
>
>An Overview of Eastern Orthodoxy
>http://www.leaderu.com/isot/docs/orthdox3.html
>
>[snip]
>
>Humanity, Sin, and Redemption
>
>Eastern Orthodox theological thought regarding humanity, sin, and
>redemption is closely linked and revolves around the concept of
>theosis. The doctrine is also called deification or divinization,
>and though it is a hallmark of Eastern Orthodoxy it is shrouded in
>mystery which the Orthodox are hesitant to analyze. Simply put,
>theosis means being deified or becoming like God. Theosis connotes
>participation in God's nature while maintaining a distinct human
>nature. Orthodox thinkers consistently deny that theosis is a
>pantheistic worldview on the grounds that theosis does not involve
>the destruction of the human nature as part of the process. Theosis
>is held by the Orthodox to be the chief end of Humanity. Humans were
>created for deification [11].
>
>Eastern Orthodoxy's assertion that humanity's ultimate goal is
>theosis, or participation in the Divine life, has informed and
>shaped their doctrine of the Fall.
>
>Their understanding of original sin differs from that of Western
>theologians in that Adam and Eve are not responsible, through their
>sin, for universal guilt, but for universal mortality. Adam's
>personal sin did not bring condemnation upon all people, it brought
>death upon all people. The experience of mortality leads otherwise
>guiltless individuals to sinful acts [12], but the Orthodox maintain
>that each person's sin is the result of his or her own choice and
>not the choice of Adam [13].
>
>Given this idea that humanity's basic problem is mortality, the
>Orthodox view of redemption is much broader than that of the Western
>church. Western theological tradition emphasizes the judicial aspect
>of salvation, asserting that in salvation, God is primarily
>concerned with the remission of sin [14]. The Orthodox view is that
>the gospel is not primarily the solution to man's problem with
>personal sin. It is God's provision of divine life in Christ, the
>beginning of theosis. A residual benefit of beginning the process of
>deification is the remission of sins. Baptism is the means by which
>the believer enters into this new life. John Meyendorff summarizes
>the idea of redemption in Eastern Orthodox theology well. He says,
>
>Communion in the risen body of Christ; participation in divine life;
>sanctification through the energy of God, which penetrates the
>humanity and restores it to its "natural" state, rather than
>justification, or remission of inherited guilt--these are at the
>center of Byzantine understanding of the Christian Gospel [15]. [snip]
>
>More:
>
>It should be noted that the Catholic Church has adopted a much more
>Eastern understanding in recent years. In fact, the Catechism of the
>Catholic Church is very Eastern in its approach to original sin.
>http://www.east2west.org/original_sin.htm
>
>~ Janice
>
>
Received on Tue Apr 4 15:10:16 2006